5. Based on its jurisdiction, in the context of provisional measures, the Court must consider only arguments that are strictly and directly related to extreme gravity, urgency and need to avoid irreparable harm to persons. Thus, in order to decide whether the provisional measures should be kept in force, the Tribunal must analyze whether the situation of extreme gravity and urgency on which their adoption was based persists, or whether new, equally grave and urgent circumstances warrant keeping them in place. Any other matter may brought before the Court by means of a contentious case.4 6. Given the amount of time that these provisional measures have been in force and the fact that Peru has repeatedly asked that they be lifted, the Court must examine the information submitted before ruling on the need to maintain the provisional measures. 7. In the last order of the Court in this matter (supra Having Seen 1), the ruling that extreme gravity and urgency of avoiding irreparable harm to the life and personal integrity of the beneficiaries persisted was made conditional to the submission of detailed and updated information by the representatives regarding: (a) the progress made in the proceeding instituted before the Second Criminal Chamber of Lima, case file No. 733-08, in which Luis Alberto Ramírez Hinostroza was a witness, and the time limits established for the main procedural stages; (b) the documentation proving the connection of Mr. Ramirez Hinostroza in his capacity as witness to the said proceeding, and (c) the circumstances of risk to the life and physical integrity of the said beneficiary and his next of kin in relation to this proceeding. In particular, the representatives must forward detailed information, if possible, with evidence of the new threats that Mr. Ramirez Hinostroza has suffered. [Also, they must send information allowing the Court] to evaluate whether the situation of extreme gravity and urgency that could cause irreparable harm to [the beneficiaries’ lawyers] persists.5 8. Consequently, in this order, the Tribunal will first proceed to examine the measures of protection in favor of the beneficiaries and to evaluate whether a situation of extreme gravity and urgency that could give rise to irreparable harm to the beneficiaries of these provisional measures persists, along with the need to retain them, only in relation to the information concerning case file No. 733-08 and alleged new situations of risk. With regard to the report provided concerning the points that were decided in the Order of February 3, 2010, the Court defers to the contents of that order. a) Implementation of the measures of protection 9. The representatives stated that on January 28, 2010, the vehicle that the beneficiary had been using for transportation was arbitrarily taken away, placing his “personal and physical integrity in great danger.” They added that owing to a lack of and Dominicans of Haitian Origin in the Dominican Republic. Provisional Measures regarding the Dominican Republic. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 1, 2011, Considering 4. 4 Matter of James et al. Provisional Measures regarding Trinidad and Tobago. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of June 29, 1998, 19, Considering six, and Matter of Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian Origin in the Dominican Republic. Provisional Measures regarding the Dominican Republic. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 1, 2011, Considering 6. 5 Matter of Ramírez Hinostroza et al. Provisional Measures regarding Peru. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights dated February 3, 2010, Considering 31 and 33. 3